Talk:Union School of Theology

Sourcing
It should be noted that this article is sourced solely to WP:SPS & affiliated sources. This means that notability has not been established. It also means that the article is in violation of WP:SELFPUB: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand how either the British Centre for Science Education website or Evangelicals Now qualifies as a self-published source. StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BCSE is a fairly small, volunteer-run organisation, so its website would class as a WP:SPS or close equivalent (it certainly lacks the stature of its US equivalent, the National Center for Science Education). The Evangelicals Now article is by the WEST principal, so hardly third-party. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how being small and volunteer-run qualifies BCSE as having an SPS website. In any case, the reference is citing a statement about how the BCSE describes WEST, so of course we would expect to be citing its website. StAnselm (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A "small and volunteer-run" will have little in the way of editorial oversight. Strictly speaking it may be better to describe it as a WP:QS, but (i) WP:QS lacks its own inline tag & (ii) policy treats WP:QS & WP:SPS pretty-near interchangeably. But to avoid giving you further conniptions on the subject, I will use a more generic tag. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it's a wiki -- therefore per se unreliable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the BCSE has to go. StAnselm (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Evangelicals Now does not appear to be self-published. It's not like all Evangelicals were linked in a giant Protocols of the Elders of Evangelicalism, or something.  It is an independent publication with a board of directors, etc.  As is Evangelical Times.I.Casaubon (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  I NEVER said that Evangelicals Now was self-published! Get a fracking clue! However articles written in it by the principal of WEST ARE NOT INDEPENDENT, and so do not add to WP:Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn is correct.  He tagged an article in Evangelical Now that was by the Chancellor.   My bad.  The article can certainly use a lot more work.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability
I would note that we currently have: This does not add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so does not establish WP:Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two WEST-affiliated sources (its principal and development manager)
 * One indirectly-affiliated source (Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church)
 * Two WP:SPSs (BCSE & genuki)
 * Two local (South Welsh) sources

Notability tag
I have removed the notability tag. An 80 year old seminary that grants the Ph.D. in Theology every year to graduating ministers who move directly to pulpits in churches and missions is WP:N. Period.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * and I am restoring the tag until I.Casaubon can point to where WP:ORG states that "An 80 year old seminary that grants the Ph.D. in Theology every year to graduating ministers who move directly to pulpits in churches and missions is WP:N" (with or without a "period"). Otherwise all this is just irrelevant huffing and puffing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia.". If you disagree, start an AFD.   Although to do so would, in my opinion, be a waste of everyone's  time.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "In general, all colleges and universities are" significant institutions teaching a wide range of subjects to a broad range of students. Seminaries and schools of theology in stark contrast tend to be small, sectarian institutions teaching a small range of subjects to students within a denomination or similar limited range. Finally, I would point out that I am under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to nominate a non-notable article for deletion, and am in fact obliged, per WP:BEFORE, to EXHAUST ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES FIRST (including the possibility that significant third-party coverage may eventuate, and the possibility of merging it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at Category:Bible colleges, seminaries and theological colleges in Wales, there's probably just about enough reliable third-party information to merge the lot together into one List of bible colleges and former bible colleges in Wales that actually approximates to Wikipedia standards. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a degree-granting college and graduate school. There are secondary sources (not to mention a campus, a faculty, and several generations of graduates along with this year's enterng and graduating classes).I.Casaubon (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a small, sectarian school and seminary. It lacks substantive reliable sourcing from outside its own denomination and locality. I would also note that WP:UNIGUIDE, which you were citing before explicitly states "This notability guideline is an application of the general notability policy to the articles this project covers, not a replacement of said policy" and also notes "that it is essential to be clear whether an institution actually merits such a description" (of university or college). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The ACTUAL requirements for notability
Both WP:GNG & WP:ORG require "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (or similar wording).

For the avoidance of doubt:
 * An organisation's principal and development manager are not "independent"
 * An organisation's in-house press is not "independent"
 * Churches' lists of recommended seminaries are neither particularly independent nor particularly reliable
 * WP:LOCAL news coverage does not add to notability

Also: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing a source that does not even mention WEST for WEST's doctrinal beliefs is blatant WP:Synthesis.

More of the same
What is the point of spamming the article with still more sources of doubtful independence and reliability? It does not add to notability, and is in violation of WP:V: "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Also I.Casaubon, could you please learn good reference-formatting practice -- your references, both here and on Jonathan Stephen‎ are an utter shambles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable Faculty

 * Current faculty members Eryl Davies (academic), Robert Letham and Anthony McRoy could probably support well-sourced Wikipedia pages.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing
In improving this article, it will be important to include the many sources that use the institutions older names, including Evangelical Theological College of Wales. But note that even the quite new name Wales Evangelical School of Theology gets 70,000 google hits I.Casaubon (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

inaccurate tagging
I removed the slf-published source tags placed by User:Hrafn because the tagged material does not meet this definition. this article, written by an employee of the School, was published in an independent magazine Evangelical Times and the book (Taught to Serve: History of Barry and Bryntirion Colleges, Noel Gibbard, Bryntirion Press (1996)) was published by a press affiliated with the School, which is not the same as self-publishing.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Incompetent editing
GET A FRACKING CLUE! Now have a WP:TROUT & learn to (i) read tags before removing them & (ii) how to add citations correctly -- go to WP:CITET if you need help. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The Orchards material WAS NOT TAGGED FOR WP:SPS -- it was tagged with better source for being YET ANOTHER WP:PRIMARY/affiliated source.
 * 2) The Gibbard material hasn't been tagged (as yet) -- but given their affiliation, also merits a better source.
 * Comment. Hrafn, you are being incivil. You have also been overtagging, apparently to prove a point. While the article's notability may indeed be borderline. not every reference has to demonstrate notability. Primary sources are certainly appropriate in some instances. The year that someone became principal, for example, can easily be cited with a primary source. I see no reason why we shouldn't use the college's website to determine the number of students in the college, and yet you tagged that statement as needing a better source. On the other hand, "WEST has a significant international enrolment" probably does need a non-primary source - the college may think it's significant, but they may well be biased. In other words, facts like numbers of students can be supported with a primary source, but judgments like "significant" need better sourcing. I.Casaubon, your referencing style does indeed create more work for others. Please read Referencing for beginners and consider using citation templates. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

StAnselm: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) This is the first second THIRD time this exact same BOGUS accusation has been made against me on this talkpage and in the last few days. I therefore think I've got every right to be REALLY PISSED OFF!
 * 2) Given I.Casaubon's repeated repeated repeated repeated removal of top-level tags, accusations of WP:OVERTAGGING for inline-tags supporting these top-level tags is unreasonable.
 * 3) Please read WP:PSTS and WP:ABOUTSELF. An article is meant to be sourced primarily to reliable WP:SECONDARY/third-party sources. This article is pervasively referenced to sources of, at best, questionable reliability and/or independence.

"Credibility verified"
How was the credibility of the Banner of Truth verified? This appears to be a fairly small, radically sectarian, publication (therefore likely a WP:QS) -- and the author of the piece is the its publisher's co-founder (raising questions over editorial oversight). How does it meet WP:RS? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He would be an author "regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." StAnselm (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would certainly not consider him a particularly objective or impartial commentator (or even a particularly prominent one, if his article is to be believed) -- but I suppose his viewpoint can be included (without too much violence to WP:UNDUE) if explicitly attributed. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over Lausanne and Korean church practice
I have added a short comment alluding to this, which is comprehensively documented in the article in question .Cpsoper (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The controversies heading has been removed and sections with no relevance to Korea have been merged with Korean links, have reinstated it. Cpsoper (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Published criticism of NT Senior Lecturer's convictions on Divine inspiration
I have similarly added reference to an article documenting concerns about the NT Senior Lecturer's position on the authorship of Scripture from a well read and established evangelical journal, with 2 supporting references from the lecturer's written works. If a response appears it may be appropriate to allude to it here too. Cpsoper (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has removed referenced data, this has been reverted.Cpsoper (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP address is linked to WEST .Cpsoper (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely the same removal has taken place without explanation by an anonymous editor with an ISP in Amersfoort, The Netherlands.Cpsoper (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

More vandalism - 27/12/14 - same area, same source. Cpsoper (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the comments on the lecturer's article slightly to clarify who made the withdrawal. BLQ's critical article is unchanged. Cpsoper (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of criticism section by UST resident or visitor
I note the editor who removed the criticism section may have some interest in the institution. Cpsoper (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alleged?
The quotes in the text are from the lecturer's own cited words, so it's difficult to see how the term 'alleged' is justified. It would be helpful to provide a citation for the investigation.Cpsoper (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversy tag
I am concerned the NPOV tag has been added without discussion here, without any indication of the issue and with a difficult history of multiple excisions of sourced material without a reason being given. If anything discussion here focused previously on the uncritical advocacy of the page for the institution. I think the tag should be removed unless it can be properly aired and its issues discussed. Removing well sourced criticisms is not NPOV, it may well be the opposite. Cpsoper (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I note the main contributor's only other work has been on the President of the Seminary. Cpsoper (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A large section of critical material about the direction of travel of the college has been excised without discussion except in posting it. It's unclear how this restores neutrality. I have restored the first part. Cpsoper (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wales Evangelical School of Theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002075825/http://www.the-bac.org/colleges/directory/details.pl?id=481 to http://www.the-bac.org/colleges/directory/details.pl?id=481

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 09:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)